Warrantless Exception: Searches Incident to Arrest Flashcards
Chimel v. California
Man arrested in his home with valid arrest warrant. They asked for permission to look around, he said no, they did it anyway on the “basis of a lawful arrest.” Looked through entire house. Seized some things, took about an hour.
→ “when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape, otherwise, the officers safety might well be endangered and the arrest itself frustrated.”
- There is ample justification for a search of the person and area w/in immediate control – but that does NOT compare to entire home! search conducted here was invalid and can only be done under the authority of a search warrant - NOT REASONABLE to search a man’s entire house upon his arrest - search went FAR BEYOND his person and the area from which he might have obtained either a weapon or something that could have been used as evidence against him
Chimel Rule:
1. Officer Safety
2. Prevent Destruction of Evidence
Allowed to search person + area within immediate control of arrestee.
Us v. Robinson
police can seize evidence found in pocket upon a pat down search – applying Chimel rationales, officers can then OPEN the container found in his pocket, Chimel allows for the need for individualized determination of the suspicion to open the container
Extends Chimel to allow full search of persons, incident to lawful arrest, for protection and to seize and search physical evidence of wrongdoing, even if not related to the particular crime that served as the basis for the arrest.
Maryland v. Buie
police can conduct a “protective sweep through home when executing an arrest warrant there.
Chimel + Buei = standards: police may search the areas from which the suspect might grab a weapon, or may look for accomplices in places from which an attack could be quickly launched.
Robinson = rule: all suspects who may be arrested may be searched, along w items found on their persons at time of arrest.
Chimel + Robinson + Buie
- Chimel permits, incident to lawful arrest:
o Search of a person to remove weapons for resistance or escape;
o Seizure of evidence on the person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction; and
o Search of the area where the arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items (“within the immediate control”) - Robinson extends Chimel to allow a full search of a person, incident to lawful arrest, for protection (weapons) and to seize and search physical evidence of wrongdoing, even if not related to the particular crime that served as the basis for the arrest
o NOTE: individualized, particularized suspicion is not req for the search - Buie allows a “protective sweep” of a space “immediately adjoining the place of arrest” for the protection of officers, only a “cursory inspection” of those spaces where a person may be found (and could launch an attack) is allowed
o For areas not “immediately adjoining,” “articulable suspicion” that a dangerous person is present in that space is required
NY v. Belton (SIA for Automobile)
consideration of Chimel rule and its application to AUTOMOBILES
- Belton pulled over for speeding, officer saw pot on floor of car and arrested him, then searched compartments of his car, jackets, and back seat and found cocaine
- Court held that “when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile - including examining any contents of any containers found there.”
Arizona v. Gant (SIA for Automobile)
Gant was arrested for driving w a suspend license, handcuffed, and locked in a police car. Police officers searched his car and discovered cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat.
unreasonable search; police could not have reasonably believed that either Gant could have accessed his car at the time of the search or that evidence of the offense for which he was arrested might have been found therein.
Gant 3 Part Rule:
1. Belton does not authorize a vehicle search incident to an occupant’s arrest after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle (i.e., neither the safety nor evidentiary justifications exist from Chimel).
2. Belton and Gant do authorize a vehicle search incident to an occupant’s arrest, but only if the arrestee is unsecured, and only if the passenger compartment is “within reaching distance” of the unsecured arrestee at the time of the search (tethering to Chimel – narrow interp)
3. But a vehicle search incident to arrest also can occur when there is reason to believe evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle (even if the arrestee is secured)
a. Thus, if lawful arrest, only need “reason to believe” evidence of the crime supporting the arrest is in the vehicle to search
b. If no arrest yet, Acevedo requires PC that there is evidence of a crime in the vehicle
If arrestee is secured: if arrestee cannot reach interior, then no search. UNLESS “reason to believe” evidence of crime of ARREST in vehicle
If arrestee is unsecured: search permitted if arrestee can reach passenger compartment at the time of the search.
Riley v. California (2014) (SIA for Cell Phones)
Searched suspect’s cell phone info and found incriminating info. Moved to suppress information.
May the police, without a warrant, search digital info on a cell phone seized from an individual that has been arrested?
NO - generally. need warrant. Chimel said search was permitted for officer safety and to prevent destruction of evidence. NO safety risk here. Search for contents of phone are distinguishable from a cigarette pack in Robinson.
There MAY be an exigent circumstance argument if the contents of cell phone may alert to possible officer danger.
Once cell phone secured, little risk of destruction. concerns of destruction via remote wiping or data encryption is beyond the scope of Chimel from which an arrestee can destroy in his immediate area.
- Riley is therefore an exception to the warrantless exception that generally permits warrantless searches of effects incident to arrest
- Neither Chimel rational applies, and cell phone privacy makes these searches more intrusive, thereby requiring probable cause for reasonableness, and almost always a warrant
- RULE: Gov may not conduct a warrantless search of cell phone incident to arrest; gov must secure a warrant or demonstrate exigent circumstances
- **Riley = exception to warrantless exception that usually permits warrantless searches of effects incident to arrest
